Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit • Hacker News Board

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#561

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #559

Manuel_D wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. ...and including movements occurring in private. > The fact that the data is owned by a private company or that some of it is considered private by the individual doesn't matter: it's about tracking individuals over time. More impor…

As I quoted before: > A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” This would still be an issue even if they weren't recorded in private spaces. At issue here is the reconstruction of data, regardless of if it happened in public or…

Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#562

Post by bwv848 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 7:51 PM UTC

TFNA wrote: post #389

canelonesdeverd wrote: post #317

A bit concerning how some people in this thread will bend over backwards to defend mass surveillance. Not surprising given who owns the board, but still.

A lot of techies have lived in China and seen how that country has stronger social harmony than the West and is gradually outpacing it, so mass surveillance clearly isn't an obstacle to the general prosperity. The problem with mass surveillance rollouts in the West is that they are incomplete: the cameras might go up, but not all infractions caught on camera are actually punished. Meanwhile, in China vandals and othe…

> has stronger social harmony

Man unless you have different definition of so called social harmony, you can't be more wrong. Literally everyone is talking about 社会戾气 on Chinese social media and there are a big bunch of people seeking extreme means.

> Meanwhile, in China vandals and other disruptive people do get traced back to where they live and apprehended.

Nope. You think Chinese police force have unlimited amount manpower? We say the first lesson young people learn upon entering society is calling the police, 报警是社会第一课.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#563

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 7:52 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #493

pseudalopex wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not say installation.

A checkpoint is a type of military installation. Specifically an installation with the purpose of monitoring and controlling traffic traveling through the checkpoint.

A check point is a point where people or things are checked. It could be military or civilian. It could be permanent or temporary. It could be 1 person and a vehicle parked in a road. This would not be a military installation to most people. Or dictionaries. Or laws.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#564

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #536

UncleMeat wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The government does not need a warrant to record you in public spaces. This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. It is true that a single police officer can post up somewhere and scan license plates without a warrant. The diffe…

> This is not true. The question is whether you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If you do, then the government needs a warrant. This is why the government can't tap a payphone without a warrant even though it is in public. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers things like restrooms. Not highways, streets, parking lots, etc. This isn't relevant for Flock.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" covers whatever the public believes is reasonable. The original case creating this doctrine was about phone booths.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#565

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:05 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #563

Manuel_D wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A checkpoint is a type of military installation. Specifically an installation with the purpose of monitoring and controlling traffic traveling through the checkpoint.

A check point is a point where people or things are checked. It could be military or civilian. It could be permanent or temporary. It could be 1 person and a vehicle parked in a road. This would not be a military installation to most people. Or dictionaries. Or laws.

And the point remains, regardless of semantic quibbling: a checkpoint is probably the least surprising place to encounter surveillance. Arguably, it's the whole point of a checkpoint to surveil, "checking" in your terminology, who's passing through.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#566

Post by tencentshill » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:11 PM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #372

Fundamentally this is silly because Flock only tracks cars and not individual people. It doesn't do facial recognition surveillance. Society decided a long time ago that driving is a privilege that can be regulated in a variety of ways.

They do track people and their systems are capable of searching by identifiers including skin color and clothing. You are either disingenuous or not informed enough to discuss this issue.

It's even actively advertised as a feature: https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-freeform

https://www.404media.co/how-cops-use-flock-to-track-people-n...

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#567

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:35 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #560

text0404 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, 'what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the publ…

This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not affect other methods of monitoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States > The Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter was narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine rela…

I'm not talking about the specific ruling, I'm quoting the justification that the justices used in coming to that ruling, which is extremely relevant to modern day surveillance and whether LE using surveillance cameras from a third party to reconstruct people's movements constitutes unreasonable searches under 4A. Based on their arguments, it appears so.

> nor did it overrule prior decisions

I'm not saying it overruled prior decisions. I'm saying the reasoning of the judges has an effect on future surveillance technologies.

> You're trying to expand the scope of the decision on Carpenter to encompasses video cameras, or location tracking in general, but that is not true.

No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time).

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#568

Post by text0404 » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:46 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #561

text0404 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I quoted before: > A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” This would still be an issue even if they weren't recorded in private spaces. At issue here is the reconstruction of data, regardless of if it happened in public or…

Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.

You're focused on the narrowness of the final ruling and not the vast legal reasoning that led to it.

Carpenter's reasoning concerning comprehensive records of an individual's movements (regardless of private or public) are relevant when LE uses aggregated Flock data to reconstruct a person's movements over an extended period.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#569

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:54 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #568

Manuel_D wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking out one quote doesn't change the fact that the ruling in Carpenter was narrow, limited to cell phone location information. You're just wrong about the scope of Carpenter, and unwilling to accept that fact.

You're focused on the narrowness of the final ruling and not the vast legal reasoning that led to it. Carpenter's reasoning concerning comprehensive records of an individual's movements (regardless of private or public) are relevant when LE uses aggregated Flock data to reconstruct a person's movements over an extended period.

Except the narrowness of the final ruling is exactly what makes it not impact the legality of Flock. It doesn't matter whether you think the courts decision should be extended to cameras - your opinion doesn't decide the law, the court's opinion does.

Re: Flock Wants a Closely Surveilled World with No Exit

#570

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Sep 09, 2026, 8:57 PM UTC

text0404 wrote: post #567

Manuel_D wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just an incorrect description of the ruling in Carpenter v. US. The core of the ruling is that the third-party doctrine doesn't apply to cell phone location data. The ruling was a very narrow one and did not affect other methods of monitoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States > The Supreme Court's ruling in Carpenter was narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine rela…

I'm not talking about the specific ruling, I'm quoting the justification that the justices used in coming to that ruling, which is extremely relevant to modern day surveillance and whether LE using surveillance cameras from a third party to reconstruct people's movements constitutes unreasonable searches under 4A. Based on their arguments, it appears so. > nor did it overrule prior decisions I'm not saying it overrul…

> No, I'm saying that the same principles that led to the outcome of Carpenter also apply to technologically-assisted tracking (which includes LE using surveillance cameras to track movements over time).

And this is just a factually wrong statement about the Carpenter decision. The Supreme Court didn't apply the same principles to other methods of surveillance. They could have. But they did not, and instead gave a narrowly scoped decision that was limited to cell phone location data.

What you think the Supreme Court should have decided is irrelevant.